AUT: Question for Dave Graham

[Katha Pollitt <kpollitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------1418740C1A59
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> These are all good points but the thought of the MUA [or any other union
> for that matter] 'leading' any kind of struggle brings me out in cold
> sweat.
>
> We've just had the end of a long drawn out dock dispute here in
> Liverpool, where despite the efforts of the dockers themselves the union
> [T and G] was able to finally isolate and break their struggle.
>
> One of the 'issues' that people need to understand is why NECESSARILY
> unions act in this way. That is unions do not 'betray' their members,
> but act in an entirely PREDICTABLE and CONSISTENT way, ie in the
> interests of Capital. Until this is recognised as a fact and is
> recognised by masses of people, then the wharvies are going to go the
> same way as the Liverpool dockers.
>
> One of the brilliant things about this electronic medium is that instead
> of this lesson being confined to narrow sections of workers, confined to
> various geographical areas of the globe, we can all instantly share one
> anothers' experiences.
>
> One of the things I hope people will learn is to try and keep their
> struggle out of the hands of the unions. We have yet to discover
> perhaps, what the full implications of this are at a practical level,
> but we have to start somewhere . . . . .
>
> DG
>

    Yes, well, about that practical level. That's the problem, isn't it?
Does it mean you would oppose a union drive at your own place of work?
Start a decertification drive if your workplace is already unionized? At
The Nation magazine, where I work, I can see both pros and cons of
unionizing.  The newspaper guild is weak, coopted, not at all interested
in a fight with management, even though I always think we could win
because the publicity would be so terrible --huge hypocrisy factor if
Management denied reasonable demands. So we are underpaid.  BUT without
the union, many people would be fired -- management thinks we're
overstaffed, would like a more corporate-looking or collegiate-looking
receptionist  (at least that's my theory
of what's behind our most recent labor dispute). The only remaining
editor with leftwing politics would have been fired two years ago.  On
job security the union is very good.
  This is a very concrete benefit that some unions, in some places,
actually do deliver. I don't think we Nation staffers could achieve this
on our own.  ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

--------------1418740C1A59
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <nationml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from gw1.mail.psi.net by interramp.com (8.8.3/SMI-4.1.3-PSI-pop-local)
	id IAA09244; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:35:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Indy1.newmedium.com by gw1.mail.psi.net (8.8.3/SMI-5.5-PSI)
	id IAA20051; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:35:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from nationml@localhost)
	by Indy1.newmedium.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA16354
	for tn012442@xxxxxxxxxx; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:41:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU [128.143.200.11])
	by Indy1.newmedium.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA16347
	for <kpollitt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 08:41:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from domo@localhost) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.6) id HAA74149 for aut-op-sy-outgoing; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 07:32:32 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU: domo set sender to owner-aut-op-sy@localhost using -f
Received: from f155.hotmail.com (f155.hotmail.com [207.82.251.34]) by jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU (8.8.5/8.6.6) with ESMTP id HAA45211 for <aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 07:32:23 -0500
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by f155.hotmail.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA22931
	for aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Sat, 28 Feb 1998 04:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <199802281231.EAA22931@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from 195.188.219.142 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP;
	Sat, 28 Feb 1998 04:31:50 PST
X-Originating-IP: [195.188.219.142]
From: "dave graham" <davgraham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AUT: LL: War on the Wharfies 27 Feb update
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 04:31:50 PST
Sender: owner-aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Takver wrote

>At the recent union delegates' meeting at Dallas Brooks Hall, the
>issue of the use of armed force by the State against workers was
>not discussed. Why? It is the most serious aspect of the whole
>dispute.

This is absolutely the right question and the silence on this issue is
full of meaning.


>The unions' Fact Sheet No. 1 (3/2/98) - although informative and
>useful - omits mention of the Army role. The threat is much more
>serious than 'professional strike-breakers and a mini army
>supplied with truncheons and riot shields' - bad enough as this
>would be. The threat is guns - in the hands of professional
>soldiers whose special training is not only military, but highly
>political. These are soldiers who have no qualms about killing
>workers - they believe it's necessary.
>
>The SAS are enjoying sudden star-status in the media. TV
>interviews play up their international 'achievements', they are
>celled 'diggers' and are given official fond farewells as they
>embark for the Gulf. It might not be coincidence that the SAS have
>been rushed into international 'duty' just now. Their reputation
>took a set-back after the Blackhawk crash, and the Government
>would be hoping to establish a good image for them preparatory to
>sending them in against workers.
>
>How are we to deal with this? Most of us workers have no
>experience of facing the army. The Hawke Government used the RAAF
>to scab on pilots, but then the violence was implied rather than
>direct. The issue of the use of armed force against the workers
>should be brought into the open and discussed in pubs, street
>meetings, on radio, the internet, in markets, shops, transport
>stations, etc.
>
>The MUA might gain breathing space by manipulating arbitration,
>but the bosses own the courts too. Ultimately the MUA will need
>thousands out in the streets and at the wharves. This can only
>happen if people understand the issue. People do not respond in
>numbers to last-minute pleas for help if the ground-work has not
>been done. That must start now. The unions' arguments are strong:
>
>Average wage $30,000 for a 35 hour week. High wages only result
>from long compulsory overtime.
>
>Webb Dock handles no rural produce, so who is the NFF looking
>after?
>
>Waterfront workforce reduced 50% in 10 years. Productivity related
>more to technological investment than union policy.
>
>All these things the public needs to know. But above all is the
>blatant intention to use State armed force against organised
>labour.
>
>Surely all this is more than just an ideological push by Liberal
>Party figures. Why do some union leaders repeatedly represent it
>as such? The big bosses behind very big Capital must be very
>desperate indeed to resort to use of the army. And we should be
>finding out more about why they are so desperate. Increasing the
>political awareness of the working people should be a major
>priority for the unions, even if only for bread and butter; and
>ultimately is essential if we want to change society to one in
>which we don't need bosses.
>
>Written by the followers of the Paris Communards. Melbourne,
>February 1998.
>
>This Page is available at:
>http://www.users.bigpond.com/Takver/soapbox/ms980224.htm



These are all good points but the thought of the MUA [or any other union
for that matter] 'leading' any kind of struggle brings me out in cold
sweat.

We've just had the end of a long drawn out dock dispute here in
Liverpool, where despite the efforts of the dockers themselves the union
[T and G] was able to finally isolate and break their struggle.

One of the 'issues' that people need to understand is why NECESSARILY
unions act in this way. That is unions do not 'betray' their members,
but act in an entirely PREDICTABLE and CONSISTENT way, ie in the
interests of Capital. Until this is recognised as a fact and is
recognised by masses of people, then the wharvies are going to go the
same way as the Liverpool dockers.

One of the brilliant things about this electronic medium is that instead
of this lesson being confined to narrow sections of workers, confined to
various geographical areas of the globe, we can all instantly share one
anothers' experiences.

One of the things I hope people will learn is to try and keep their
struggle out of the hands of the unions. We have yet to discover
perhaps, what the full implications of this are at a practical level,
but we have to start somewhere . . . . .

DG

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---


--------------1418740C1A59--




     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---